TK1NGA. 



415 



Type. 



Eurhynorhynchus, Nilsson, Orn. Suec. ii. p. 29 (1821) T. pygmaea. 



Falcinellus, Cuvier, Rlgne Anim. i. p. 527 (1829) T. subarquata. 



Leimonites, Kaup, Natiirl. Syst. p. 37 (1829) T. temmincki. 



Ancylocheilus, Kaup, Natiirl. Syst. p. 50 (1829) T. subarquata. 



Actodromas, Kaup, Natiirl. Syst. p. 55 (1829) T. minuta. 



Canutus, Brehm, Vog. Deutschl. p. 653 (1831) T. canutus. 



Schceniclus, Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus. iii. p. 104 (1844) T. alpina. 



Tringites, Cabanis, Journ. Orn. 1856, p. 418 T. rufescens. 



Arquatella, Baird, B. N. Amer. p. 717 (1858) ■ T. maritima. 



Delopygia, Coues, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1861, p. 190 T. bonaparti. 



Heteropygia, Coues, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1861, p. 191 T. bonaparti. 



Limnociuclus, Gould, Handb. B. Austr. ii. p. 254 (1865) T. acuminata. 



The genus Tringa has been split up most unmercifully by modern ornithologists into Rostral 

 pseudogenera, founded, for the most part, on slight differences in the shape of the bill. It natural Un ~ 

 would be waste of time to point out the characters which are supposed to distinguish these 

 artificial little genera. There can scarcely be any doubt that the rostral system when 

 carried out " regardless of consequences " is an unnatural one, and misrepresents in many 

 cases the genetic relationship of birds. The following attempt to arrange the genus Tringa 

 in convenient groups which shall at the same time be natural is based principally upon 

 colour, those parts being chosen which do not vary with age, sex, or season, and which are 

 presumably characters which date far back. 



Natural 

 subgenera. 



A. Upper tail-coverts white, or white barred or streaked with black. 



B. Last secondaries (next to the tertials) white or nearly so. 



C. Inner web of primaries mottled with black. 



D. Upper tail-coverts the same colour or darker than the rump ; all the secondaries 



grey with a more or less distinct white margin. 



The type of the genus Tringa is one of those puzzles which give ornithologists Determina- 

 opportunities of differing in opinion. Linneus, who knew nothing about types in the t lon e ° tt]ie 

 sense in which that much-abused word is used by modern genus-makers, placed the Ruff 

 at the head of his genus Tringa ; but as that species is not a Tringa at all but a Totanus, it 

 is impossible to accept it as the type. The type of Brisson's genus Tringa is also a 

 Totanus, the Tringa tringa of Brisson being a synonym of Totanus oc/iropus, the Green 

 Sandpiper. The next ornithologist who subdivided the genus Tringa was Bechstein, who 

 removed the Sanderling to a genus by itself, adopted Brisson's genus Limosa for the 

 Godwits and some of the white-rumped Sandpipers, and changed the name of the genus 

 to Totanus ; but Bechstein still left the Ruff at the head of his restricted genus Tringa. 

 Thirteen years later Vieillot made a genus for the Curlew-Sandpiper, and made the 

 Maubeche or Knot {Tringa canutus) the type of the genus Tringa. 



